Black Hawk Down-Part V

H

Hard Ball

New member
posted March 09, 2000 07:53 PM         
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some additional information on the Army's light armored vehicle(LAV) program
.
The Army is currently testing 35 different LAV at Fort Knox. These include five mobile gun systems, 16 infantry vehicles, two anti-tank vehicles, one ambulance, two mortar vehicles ,six reconnaissance vehicles, one combat engineer vehicle and two command and control vehicles.
Current plans call for each brigade to be issued 380 to 527 armored vehicles depending on the types of vehicles selected.
The Army hopes to have the first brigade equipped by March 2001. Additional brigades will be fully equipped at six month intervals. So far the conversion of five existing infantry brigades has been authorized.

Some of the LAVs under test carry some significant weapons. The M8 Armored gun mounts a full power 105mm tank gun similat to the one carried by M60 series tanks and the origina lversion of M1 Abrams tank. The mortar version pf the LAV III has a turret mounted 120mm mortar. The antitank version of the LAV carries 16 TOW 2 antitank misiles. These kinds pf weapons could give our light infantry fivions some real firepower.

[This message has been edited by Hard Ball (edited March 11, 2000).]
 
The 105mm is an excellent gun! It is more accurate and lasts longer (1000 rds. v. 500) than the W.German 120mm that replaced it on the M1A1 Abrams. My problem with infantry fighting vehicles has always been the armor, or lack of armor. During the last REFORGER (Sept. 1988) I witnessed a M88 rip open the armor of a Bradley with its blade. The driver thought he had enough room for a turn, but he didn't. Seeing that didn't inspire confidence in Bradley armor. What about the armor on these new vehicles? If they use the same technology as the M1 Abrams, they will have a winner. However, tank-like armor may be too heavy for an infantry fighting vehicle.

------------------
"I don't believe in individualism, Peter. I don't believe that any one man is any one thing which everybody else can't be. I believe that we are all equal and interchangeable."--Ellsworth Toohey

[This message has been edited by ellsworthtoohey (edited March 11, 2000).]
 
A little off the subject, but have you guys ever seen what a 105 can do to the top of an armored vehicle or tank when hoisted up to about 12,000 ft and fired downward?

Even the old Swedish Bofors 40 mm Cannon is effective from above. As in AC-130 Gunship.

They are vulnerable, but mobile in the extreme and accurate! In my opinion, they have been over-sold as effective in a high threat envoironment. A low-to-medium threat environment is more to the truth. They're just a little faster that a hot air balloon. Ack!

I wondered if any of you have had a chance to work with them. As a crew member, I've went to several JRTCs and other planned exercises with the several components of USSOCOM. We may have crossed paths.
 
Yeah, I've seen alot of different types of armor defeated. But I'll tell you; the 1 1/2 inch armor on the top of an M1 Abrams turrent is still better protection from the air than a kevlar helmet.

------------------
"I don't believe in individualism, Peter. I don't believe that any one man is any one thing which everybody else can't be. I believe that we are all equal and interchangeable."--Ellsworth Toohey
 
The M8 armored gun has three levels of armor, the basic level and two levels of additional armor which can be air transported seperately and bolted on in the combat zone. This allows it to be air transported in a Lockheed C130.
The M8 has a crew of three.
The fire control sistem for the 105mm gun uses the same technology as the M1 Abrams tank. This gives the 105mm a very high first round hit probability.
The gun is fed by a 21 round auto loader which is supposed to give the M8 a high rate of fire.
 
Is this LAV based on the LAV-25 that he Marines are/were using?

If I remember correctly, the LAV-25 had a series of modular turrets that could be fitted and retro-fitted to provide for a wide variety of specialized roles.

LawDog
 
The LAVs being tested are LAV IIIs, an improved versions of the original LAVs produced by General Motors of Canada for the Marine Corps. They are modular. All have the same engines, transmissions running gear but with different weapons packages which producethe specialized versions such as the LAV-AT antitank version and the LAV mortar carrier.
 
ellsworthtoohey, putting a decent amount of armor on an APC or IFV is a pretty tough task. unless your dismounts are leprechauns, you have to have a lot of volume in the chassis. volume = area, and area = weight.

I'm pretty sure there have been plans for an APC with the same armor level as the current MBT, with lots of parts commonality. I guess this makes some sense, as long as you have combined arms teams with heavy, medium, and light vehicle families. with the current budgets, however...
 
They managed to do it in Israel a few years back. It was a Main Battle Tank that also carried a squad of infantry. I saw pictures, but I don't remember what it was called.
 
The Merkava (SP?) could carry a fire team, but normally used the space for extra ammo. The draw back to that tank is that it is really slow.

------------------
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
 
The original LAV-25 could carry 6 fully equipped infantry men in addition to its crew.
Some of the light armored vehicles the Army is currently testing are designed to carry 12 men, a 9 man army rifle squad and a vehicle crew of three but I nave not been able to find out yet who makes it (them?) and what armament the vehicles carrys.
 
one thing I keep expecting to see on APCs/IFVs is a .50 gatling gun. there are some scenarios where it could really suppress enemy fire, and it wouldn't require so much beefing up of the hull (as opposed to a 75mm or 105mm gun).

I guess I prefer the combination of APC + light tank versus a combination IFV. having one big gun per chassis seems excessive. ten M113s plus two light tanks plus two SP mortars (I believe there's a mortar carrier version of the M113).

the modular turret idea seems sound, as it allows development of weaponary as needed despite flaws in current doctrine. as far as I know, our M2/M3-based cavalry forces don't have an armored mortar system that can keep up with the Bradleys.
 
The normal load out in a LAV 25 is 4 Marines, 6 is possibly but very very hard.

------------------
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
 
Ivanhoe is right. The 120mm mortar carrying vehicles in our tank battalions and mechanized infantry battalions are based on the M113 APC. They cannot keep up with either the Bradleys or the M1 Abrams tanks.
The obvious solution is to replace the current mortar carriers with similar vehicles based on the Bradley chassis. There is no technical problem in doing this but DOD has vetoed it as being too costly.
 
The LAV IIIs are, indeed, being tested at Ft. Knox. They are also testing several other wheeled vehicles from various makers around the world. Again, the intent is to come up with a common chassis for all of the BCT's combat vehicles.

I have a pretty good picture of a LAV III Mobile Support Gun (MSG)variant firing in low light...if someone can educate me on the tech part, I'll be happy to try and post it here.

BTW, the picture is an attachment to some e-mail that was sent to me...it's already in electrons, I don't have to scan it in.

Mike

[This message has been edited by Mike Spight (edited March 12, 2000).]
 
I've got a question about mortar carriers. Are they all open-top. I mean I know they have to be, with the mortar and all, but do they have any provisions for overhead protection while on the move or to prevent the random grenade being tossed in, etc? I recall the tank destroyers of WWII (M10 & M36) not being wildly popular with their crews for this reason. Also I guess the weather in Europe didn't make being in an open-top vehicle very fun. I guess you could consider it a convertible :)

[This message has been edited by Gopher a 45 (edited March 12, 2000).]
 
Gopher:

The intent for the BCT's mortar carrier is for the 120mm and 81mm variants to fire through a turret of some type on top of the wheeled carrier...at least that is the objective.

The old mortar carriers (4.2") were, indeed, open in an M113 tracked vehicle.

Mike
 
Mike, dumb question here; is the 120m mortar a new thing for US forces? all I know of in current issue are the 60mm and 81mm units, and I noticed the Russians/Soviets/whatever have a wider range of mortar calibers (as well as artillery).

Hard Ball; I bet the M113 chassis could be cranked up to Bradley speeds, with a new engine/tranny package. but that wouldn't offer the same armor level nor benefit from parts/skills commonality. the light weight of the M113 family would definitely be advantageous for Shinseki's rapid response forces.
 
The M106 Mortar carrier, 120mm M120 mortar in a M113 chassis was adopted several years ago. The system doesn't have a turret and has a armored doors that are opened to fire the mortar. The system is,will be getting a upgrade that includes a replacement of the MBC with a LCU based fire direction computer, that has DRU like the paladin, so it will not longer need to be oriented by compass or aiming circle. The 2d ACR and Rangers have a M120 ground mount, it comes equiped with a trailer to be towed with or pulled so it doesn't need to be broken down to be transported. The M120 is the replacement for the M30 4.2" mortar in the active duty units.

------------------
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
 
The 120mm heavy mortar replaced the 4.2 inch rifled (107mm) mortar. The 120mm is a smooth bore. It was adopted as a us version of the Isreli 120mm which was an Israel1 adaption of the Finnish Tampella. Oneof the advantages of the 120mm is tht its nonprotating projectile works better with guided projectiles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top